Second review into controversial SA Museum changes rejected
The Upper House has voted down a push for a parliamentary committee to examine the proposed SA Museum restructure, on top of a review already launched by the state government.
The motion rejected on Wednesday night called for the Statutory Authorities Review Committee to examine the SA Museum’s “proposed restructure of research and collections”, its “infrastructure and proposed strategic plan”, its “funding from government and non-government sources” and “[a]ny related matters”.
The motion was supported by nine Liberal and Green MLCs as well as independent, Frank Pangallo.
Pangallo introduced an amendment, supported by the Liberals and Greens, that would have seen the review expanded to also look at the Art Gallery of South Australia.
Labor, One Nation’s Sarah Game and SA Best’s Connie Bonaros voted against the motion.
Game and Bonaros both said they supported the motion’s sentiment but would prefer to wait for the outcome of the Premier’s Review first.
You might like
The motion was introduced on April 10 by Liberal MLC Nicola Centofanti, amid a growing backlash from the scientific community about museum management’s planned restructure of research positions and policy, as well as exhibitions.
“Given the South Australian Museum is indeed a statutory authority, we believe that the Statutory Authorities Review Committee is the fit and proper place for this inquiry to occur,” Centofanti said at the time.
“We feel this inquiry is not only necessary but also essential to ensure that the Museum’s research capabilities and institutional knowledge are protected for generations to enjoy into the future.”
But on April 26, Premier Peter Malinauskas announced the restructure had been put on hold pending a Premier’s Review, helmed by the head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
Stay informed, daily
Malinauskas acknowledged significant community concern over the proposed changes.
“We have not been the authors of the proposition to change the museum, the museum board is – that is their prerogative,” he said.
“But having assessed their proposition and some of the concerns that exist around it, we’ve stepped in, put it on hold and we’re going to have a Premier’s-led review to make sure we get the right outcome.”
Centofanti said this week that the government-initiated review “does not guarantee answers to numerous questions which have been raised, nor does it allay public concern over the processes taking place”.
“It is also critical that a review of this nature is independent of the government,” she said.
“The people of South Australia are seeking assurance that their museum will not only retain its wide variety of exhibits but will continue its scientific, anthropologic and archaeological work.
“One issue that particularly demands a review that is independent of government is the need to consider the museum’s budget, and what adjustments may need to be made in order to ensure that the museum is capable of fulfilling its legislated duties at an appropriately high level.
“DPC is the responsible department for the museum’s funding and governance, and so a review by DPC into their own management of this authority is utterly unsatisfactory.”
The Premier’s Review is expected to report back in several months.
